Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Re[2]: performance questions

RE: Re[2]: performance questions

From: Jamadagni, Rajendra <>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 05:29:40 -0800
Message-ID: <>


I do not think this thread is OT ... this is till very much on topic. I have been gaining so many views on SLA ... I love this topic.


Rajendra dot Jamadagni at nospamespn dot com All Views expressed in this email are strictly personal. QOTD: Any clod can have facts, having an opinion is an art !

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 3:00 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L


Your comment "this is probably harder than it sounds" should be reworded to "this IS harder than it sounds". I've been involved in these bumfights before and they are never pleasant, especially when a contract of significant question is on the line (like a $3m / month performance bonus).

A simple example of re-negotiation is a batch system (system A) dependent on data from another system (system B). If the SLA says "system A will be available by 7:00am each day" and system B starts delivering the data at 2:00am instead of midnight, then system A might try to renegotiate for a new deadline. Of course in reality the response will be "I don't care, you just be complete by 7:00am still".

I think most times this point relates to an SLA which wasn't written correctly and needs to be updated. Say the SLA had a token query which must execute from a clients desktop and return within 2 seconds. Initially the ping time between desktop and host was 20ms but something changed and the ping is now 200ms. Add in a few round trips and suddenly you've eaten away the 2 seconds regardless of query execution time. Did the original SLA have a clause about ping time in it? If not it probably should have, but since we are only human it's easy to forget. Of course the real trick is to prove the degradation in network performance - who would ever keep ping stats?

Alternatively an SLA might be based on a customer-base of 10,000 customers and a company acquisition might mean the customer base will grow to 100,000 customers - this might trigger SLA re-negotiation depending on the wording of the SLA and the generousity of the company. It would be nice to think that companies would be reasonable in this circumstance but sometimes it's a battle. I guess an intra-company SLA (where no money is typically on the line) is easier to manage that one with a financial price attached.

Anyway I'll stop now - I think this has reached OT status for the Oracle list and I'm not really the most qualified person to speak about this. I'm just the guy who has had to "prove it wasn't our fault".



Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
Author: Jamadagni, Rajendra

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).

Received on Thu Jun 05 2003 - 08:29:40 CDT

Original text of this message